The King James Even Better?
The New King James Bible: New Testament, (Nelson, 1979, 407 pp., $7.95 hb, $4.95 pb).
The king james Version (KJV) became the “authorized” version of the Bible in the English-speaking church for many reasons, but it did so primarily because of its own intrinsic worth. That it has needed overhauling has been known for centuries; numerous attempts to do it have been made. The most recent revision is a New King James Bible (NKJB) New Testament, the purpose of which, according to its publishers, is “to make the King James even better”! To analyze how well this has been accomplished is the purpose of this review. In doing so, 10 of the most significant criticisms of the KJV will be listed and the NKJB tested to see how it has answered these complaints and whether it is in fact an improvement.
1. Obsolete words and forms. The KJV has been criticized for using archaic or obsolete words, forms, and phrases, making it almost unintelligible in spots.
The NKJB has handled this problem very well. Almost all of the archaic forms are gone, replaced by more modern terms. For example, “fetched a compass” in Acts 28:13 becomes “circled round” and all of the thees, thous, wilts, saiths, and so forth, are gone. But even better, misleading archaic terms (as opposed to merely archaic terms) have been replaced by more accurate words. Thus, in Matthew 15:21, Acts 19:1, “coast” becomes “region”; in Romans 1:29 “debate” becomes “strife”; in 2 Corinthians 4:2 “dishonesty” becomes “shame”; and in Acts 17:23 “devotions” becomes “objects of worship.” There is no need to multiply examples; as far as I can tell almost all such terms were caught.
I did notice a few minor problems. In Matthew 6:25, 31, 34 “take no thought” becomes “do not worry,” and rightly so; but the same idea in 1 Peter 5:7 stays “casting all your care.” This following Matthew 6, should have become “anxiety” or “worry.” In Philippians 2:13, I can’t see how “for his good pleasure” is an improvement over “of his good pleasure,” nor how in Philippians 2:17 “on the sacrifice” is better than “upon the sacrifice.” Neither one is clear. Keeping “stock” in Philippians 3:5 and “belly” in Philippians 3:19 are also open to question.
2. Faulty grammar. The KJV has been faulted for not understanding Greek grammar and thus mistranslating in numerous places.
The NKJB corrects virtually all of the problem passages that I examined and handles them very well. As examples, in 2 Corinthians 5:14 (aorist tense) “all were dead” becomes correctly “all died”; in Acts 19:2 (two aorists), the very inadequate “Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” becomes “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”; in Acts 2:47 (present tense) “should be saved” becomes “were being saved”; in Matthew 3:1, 13, two historical presents are straightened out from “came … cometh” to “came … came”; in 1 Thessalonians 4:6 “any matter” becomes “this matter” giving the definite article due force; Luke 6:17 “in the plain” becomes quite accurately “on a level place” reflecting both the meaning of the words lexically and the absence of a definite article; in John 4:27 “the woman” becomes “a woman,” again, properly reflecting the absence of an article.
In one troublesome place only partial correction was made. In 1 John 3:4–8, the NKJB translates a series of present tenses (four participles) this way: verse 4, “commits sin”; verse 6, “whoever sins”; verse 7, “practices righteousness”; verse 8, “practices sin.” The problem here is that in the Greek they all have the same force as present tenses, and in fact in verses 4 and 8 the Greek is identical. So why should verse 4 be “commits sin” and verse 8 be “practices sin”? They ought all to be the same, stressing the practicing of sin or righteousness.
In another place, Colossians 1:19, the NKJB made no correction at all. The KJV says “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.” The NKJB accepted that translation and kept “the Father” even though these words are not in the original text; they did not take any notice of the definite article with “fulness”; and they did not make “the Fullness” the subject of the sentence, which it in all probability is. The NKJB should have translated it “All the Fullness was pleased to dwell in Him.”
This is a large subject and many examples could be given; but on the whole, the translators did a good job.
3. One English word for many Greek words. The KJV has been criticized for using one English word when the Greek text used different Greek words, thus obscuring the meaning of the original by not preserving the differences.
Here the NKJB does fairly well, but several instances were missed. On the credit side, there are these examples (the Greek words are different, naturally): in 1 Corinthians 14:20 “Children … children” becomes “children … babes”; in John 10:16 “fold … fold” becomes “fold … flock”; in Galatians 1:6–7 “another … another” becomes “different … another.”
On the debit side, however, the NKJB left the following the same: in Acts 19:15 “I know … I know” stays the same; in 1 Corinthians 13:12 “I know … I shall know … I am known” stays the same; in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am” (both are forms of the English verb “to be”) stays the same, but the Greek text has two different words, one that stresses Abraham’s coming into being and the other stressing Christ’s eternal existence.
4. Many English words for one Greek. The KJV has been criticized for using several English words unnecessarily when only one Greek word was used, creating several ideas when there was actually only one.
The NKJB handles this problem quite well. For example, in Romans 5:10, 11, “reconciled … reconciled … atonement” becomes “reconciled … reconciled … reconciliation”; in 1 Corinthians 11:29, 34 “damnation … condemnation” becomes “judgment … judgment”; the jumble of terms translating praetorium in Matthew 27:27, Mark 15:16, John 18:28, 33; 19:9 all become “Praetorium”; in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7 “withholdeth … letteth” becomes “restrain … restrain”; “hades” becomes uniformly “hades”; and gehenna” becomes uniformly “hell.”
Others could have been corrected as well. In 1 Corinthians 11:29, 31 “discern … judge” remains unchanged, although it is the same Greek word. In 1 John 2:1parakletos stays “advocate” rather than becoming “Helper” as translated in John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7, where “Comforter” became “Helper.” In Matthew 25:46 “everlasting … eternal” stays two words even though the same Greek word is used.
5. Old Testament quotes. The KJV translated identical quotations from the Old Testament differently, creating confusion.
The NKJB gets high marks here. Numerous checks have shown that most of the inconsistencies have been ironed out. For example, in Romans 12:19 and Hebrews 10:30 (quoting Deuteronomy 32:35), and James 5:20 and 1 Peter 4:8 (quoting Proverbs 10:12), the problem was corrected.
In one place the NKJB rather oddly only corrected part of the problem. Hebrews 3:11 and 4:3 both quoted Psalm 95:11 using exactly the same words in the Greek. The KJV translated it this way: Hebrews 3:11, “So I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter into my rest”; Hebrews 4:3, “As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest.” The NKJB only partially corrects these in this way: Hebrews 3:11, “So I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter My rest”; Hebrews 4:3, “As I have sworn in My wrath, They shall not enter My rest.”
In another place the NKJB simply missed it. Genesis 15:6 is translated three different ways in the New Testament (the Greek is identical in each case): Romans 4:3, “It was counted to him for righteousness”; Romans 4:22, James 2:23, “It was imputed to him for righteousness”; Galatians 3:6, “It was accounted to him for righteousness.” The NKJB left it all unchanged even though the Greek is exactly the same in all four places.
6. Hard to follow. The KJV has been accused of being cumbersome, hard to follow, and misleading in spots because of bad grammar and poor word usage.
The NKJB has handled all this very well. All of the classic problems are solved, as well as others I checked. For example, in Galatians 6:2, 5 where the KJV has Paul contradicting himself (“Bear one another’s burdens … each shall bear his own burden”) the NKJB is clear as a bell. Philippians 2:4 now makes sense in the NKJB with “Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.” In Philippians 3:20 “conversation” becomes, properly, “citizenship.”
The NKJB perhaps could have done a better job at cutting up some of Paul’s very long sentences, but they did try. Check Ephesians 1:3–14, which is one 202-word sentence in Greek.
7. Coins, weights, measures. The KJV has been accused of misunderstanding and mistranslating the Roman coins, weights, and measures mentioned in the New Testament.
The NKJB does a very bad job of straightening this out. They state a principle in their introduction, “Words representing ancient objects, such as chariots and phylacteries, have no modern substitutes and are necessarily retained” (p. iii). If this principle had been consistently applied to the coins, the confusion would have been cleared up, but they only applied it in one case, calling the denarion a “denarius.” Unfortunately, lepton in Mark 12:42, Luke 12:55, 21:2, stays “mite”; drachmē in Luke 15:8, 9 stays “piece of silver” or “piece”; statēr in Matthew 17:27 stays “piece of money.” Oddly kordantēs becomes “penny” in Matthew 5:26, but quadrans in Mark 12:42, only partially following their rule. Assarion in Matthew 10:29, Luke 12:6 goes from “tribute” to “temple tax.” The NKJB obviously felt the problem here because two of their only four explanatory notes are given to describe the modern value of money (see notes on John 12:5 and Revelation 6:6). Had the NKJB carried the excellent principle through, as stated in the introduction, it would have solved a real problem. As it is, neither the text nor the notes help much.
Weights and measures fare no better. Translating saton, Matthew 13:33, Luke 13:21; batos, Luke 16:6; koros, Luke 16:7; and choinix, Revelation 6:6 all “measure” is inexcusable.
The NKJB is no improvement over the KJV here.
8. Inconsistent spelling of names. The KJV has been criticized for not being consistent in spelling of names.
A lot of these have already been corrected by other editions of the KJV, and the NKJB has followed suit, working it out very well. No longer is Mark “Marcus” in Philemon 24 and 1 Peter 5:13; nor is Judah “Judas” in Matthew 2:6 and “Jude” in Hebrews 7:14. Many other examples could be given, but these incongruities were all taken care of, from my observation.
9. Adding words to the text. The KJV has been criticized for adding words to the text of sacred Scripture, saying they were implied. These words are italicized in the KJV to alert the reader to the fact that no Greek words stand behind them.
The NKJB has continued the policy of using additional words, which in some instances are warranted; but in my opinion the translators exercised very bad editorial judgment in not italicizing them. Now the reader has no way of knowing which words are actually in the text and which are thought to be implied by the translator. The translators have compounded this problem by keeping only some of the words, while retranslating others—but the reader has no way of knowing any of this, because the NKJB presents it all in straight text. This is not a minor point; there are thousands of such words in the KJV.
Hebrews 9 is an example. There are 22 additional words in the KJV. The NKJB has kept 16, with three retranslated (in verse 8 “testament” becomes “covenant” and in verse 10 “which stood” becomes “concerned”). The additions in verses 10, 12, and 15s are omitted—in verse 12 “for us” rightly so. But “of God” in verse 6 should also have been omitted but wasn’t. I could find no consistency in the way this problem was handled, but the worst of it is that the reader will never know what was done by looking only at the NKJB.
10. Inferior text. The KJV has been accused of using an inferior text, hence a retranslation of it is not only unnecessary, but wrong.
There are two points being made here, which need separate treatment. First, is the text of the KJV inferior to some modern reconstructions? In my judgment, and in the judgment of the vast majority of modern biblical scholars and textual critics, it is. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the modern reconstructions of the text more closely approximate the original text of Scripture than does the so-called Textus Receptus from which the KJV is translated. It is evident that some of the NKJB translators have reservations at this point as well. The only textual note in the whole book is found at the crucial spot, 1 John 5:7–8. It reads “The words from ‘in heaven’ (v. 7) through ‘on earth’ (v. 8) are from the Latin Bible, although three Greek manuscripts from the fifteenth century and later also contain them.” If the purpose of this is not to alert the reader to the fact that there is no justification for retaining these words, I can’t imagine why it appears here. Explanatory notes should have been added at John 5:4, 7:53–8:11, Mark 16:9–20, and so on.
Second, does the foregoing mean a newKJV should not exist? While I don’t want to sound like I’m fudging, I cannot find myself saying yes. It is a simple fact that 34.8 percent of American homes still use the KJV as the primary Bible. The second choice was not even close. This is true in spite of all the other excellent translations that exist today and this situation is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. So, in a real sense, it doesn’t matter what I think; people will buy the KJV for their own reasons and read it as God’s Word. Since this is true, at least let them read one they can understand, and the NKJB can be understood. The important thing is to read God’s Word, not wonder about which version to use. The KJV text may be inferior—but no one will lose his faith by reading it.
11. Summary. The NKJB is an important publishing event because now readers of the KJV have a readable and fairly accurate version to use. In most important respects the NKJB is far superior to the KJV and to be preferred. Its faults do not make it less valuable than the KJV in those respects but simply not as good as it could be. If these problems are cleared up it will be a superior piece of work. As it now stands it is very good—not excellent—but very good indeed.
WALTER A. ELWELL
A Catholic Examination Of The Basics
Foundations of Christian Faith, by Karl Rahner (Seabury, 1978, 470 pp., $19.50), is reviewed by Donald G. Bloesch, professor of theology, Dubuque Theological Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa.
In this noteworthy book, Karl Rahner, one of the leading voices in the new Catholicism, outlines the fundamentals of Christian theology. True to his Catholic heritage, he seeks a synthesis of theology and philosophy whereby the latter establishes the presuppositions for hearing and understanding the real message of Christianity. A philosophical anthropology makes it possible for the “message of grace to be accepted in a really philosophical and reasonable way.”
Rahner contends that in our proclamation we appeal to an experience already present in the unbeliever. This is because the grace of God encompasses all humanity and thereby enables every person to understand and assent to the redemptive message of Jesus Christ. Every person is endowed with a “supernatural existential,” a possibility for salvation that is universal but that resides not in nature as such but in human existence as it is acted upon by the Holy Spirit. In marked contrast to Barth, he affirms a point of contact between reason and revelation because natural reason is already illumined by universal prevenient grace. He goes so far as to suggest that all persons are given “the light of faith,” though they need to be made aware of this fact.
While acknowledging the propositional dimension of revelation, Rahner refuses to speak of a verbal inspiration of Scripture in the sense of Protestant orthodoxy. Scripture is the norm for the teaching office of the church, but this norm needs to be interpreted by the church if it is to function effectively.
In the area of Christology he champions what he calls a Christology from below, one that begins with the humanity of Jesus. He speaks of a “closeness” of Jesus to God, which is to be distinguished from identity.
Salvation is understood in terms of the universal outreach of grace of which Jesus is a supreme revelation. Anyone who accepts his own humanity fully “has accepted the Son of Man because in him God has accepted man.” Rahner upholds what he terms as “anonymous Christianity,” which means that any person who acknowledges the mystery of his existence can be considered a member of the body of Christ even though conceptually he may be a Hindu, a Buddhist, or even an atheist.
Rahner stands in that tradition of Christian mysticism that reflects the influence of Plato and Plotinus. He also manifests a marked affinity for Hegel and Teilhard de Chardin. Divinization becomes more important than substitutionary expiation, and the inexhaustible mystery of God is stressed over his rationality.
Despite fundamental disagreements in most major areas, the evangelical Christian can appreciate Rahner’s effort to include biblical and evangelical insights in his schema. Rahner sees a positive significance in evangelical Christianity for the Catholic church, and this includes a respect for its scriptural basis. His contention that the sacraments are efficacious only in faith, hope, and love signifies a qualification of the ex opere operato doctrine. He acknowledges that there can be no Christian faith in the full sense of this word without reference to real history.
Yet when Rahner portrays all of history as sacred history and when he regards the universal presence of love rather than the particularity of the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the “ground and essence of the church,” then the biblical Christian must demur. Rahner recognizes that there remain “substantial” differences between his position and that of evangelical Protestants in the area of Scripture and tradition. At the same time he insists that what unites us is more fundamental and decisive than what divides us. This could indeed be so, if Rahner freed himself from his decided dependence on a secular evolutionary philosophy.
Why The Shift?
Small Colleges and Goal Displacement (268 pp., $9.50) by Wilson L. Thompson, is a dissertation presented to the Department of Sociology and to the Graduate School of the University of Oregon, March 1978. (The work may be obtained from the author at 423 N. Moffet, Joplin, Mo. 64801, or on microfilm through Inter-library Loan.)
Why does a Christian college turn away from its original position and become just another school? A good attempt at answering that question can be found in this University of Oregon doctoral dissertation. In it Wilson Thompson has analyzed the history of four colleges—pseudonymously called Walter Scott Bible College, Alexander Campbell Bible College, Stone Christian College, and Thomas Campbell Christian College—and shown the factors that were at work diverting the schools from their originally stated goals. The four schools all serve the so-called independent Disciples of Christ, a conservative segment of what is to be known as the Restoration movement.
Thompson begins his study with a brief overview of goal displacement in American higher education, and after discussing a series of factors that have historically deflected schools from their original goals, proposes his thesis: “Christian college goal displacement results from inadequate organizational insulation of these schools from the secularizing influence of their academic task environment” (p. 25). A history of the Restoration movement follows and then a comparative study of goal displacement in the four schools named, with the usual dissertation charts, graphs, measurements, and rankings. In this comparative study numerous factors are discussed, all of which contributed to deflecting these colleges from their original course. One of the greatest offenders is the pursuit of accreditation, requiring as it does, accommodation at so many levels.
Thompson draws it all together in his conclusion, adding pertinent and sobering comments. He observes, “There is no explicit intention to deflect Christian colleges from their original goals. The collective wisdom of the academic community which is incorporated into regional association recommendations, however, when implemented without interruption, ultimately transforms a church-related college program until it conforms in most significant respects to academic programs of secular institutions” (p. 249). He also stresses the crucial importance of the president of the institution in determining whether or not the school changes its goals. The board of trustees were found to be “… ill-equipped to prevent or reverse goal displacement resulting from the administration’s policy even if its members are so inclined” (p. 250). Thompson ends with the disheartening remark that, “The persisting cycle of Christian college establishment and goal displacement constitutes an important social mechanism contributing to the liberal-conservative ‘symbiosis,’ whose continuance seems to be indefinitely assured by American society’s commitment to religious freedom and pluralism” (p. 260).
This study is not without its limitations. For one thing, it is very narrow in scope—four colleges of one tradition. Some of the conclusions are also open to question, particularly those concerning the role of the board of trustees and the president. It also suffers from being written in a dense sociological jargon that is often difficult to follow. But these comments do not affect the substance of what Thompson is saying. The principles he enunciates are important and probably apply everywhere. I think every Christian college administrator ought to read this and then take a good hard look at his school.
WALTER A. ELWELL
